by Ethan A. Huff
October 23, 2011
mainstream media is loudly touting the "success" of an
experimental malaria vaccine backed by
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (who
Not surprisingly, the media is failing to mention the
risk of side effects from the long-term use of the
vaccine. And the "controlled clinical trial" is, itself,
shrouded in outright fraud.
mainstream media is
abuzz with excitement over GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) latest offering,
a malaria trial vaccine that the company claims can cut the risk of
clinical and severe malaria in children by 56 percent and 47
But what GSK and the
media are failing to report are the deadly side effects that may
accompany the vaccine.
Unveiled at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's recent
Malaria Forum conference in Seattle, Wash., the results of the Phase
III African study on the malaria vaccine, known as RTS,S suggest
that children who receive three doses of it can derive additional
protection against malaria when used in conjunction with other
disease control methods. But the findings also show that vaccinated
children are at a high risk of serious injury or death as well.
A report by EarthTimes explains that the full gamut of long term
side effects associated with RTS,S will not be known until at least
the end of 2014.
It also states that,
events (very serious side effects) for [RTS,S] are around the
same level as in those who were given a control drug".
But what exactly was the
control drug, and what are these "same level" side effects?
A quick look at the study results, which have been published in the
New England Journal of Medicine, explain
that children in the "control" group received a "non-malaria
Those five to 17 months
of age got a rabies vaccine (VeroRab, Sanofi-Pasteur), and younger
children six to 12 weeks of age received a meningococcal serogroup C
conjugate vaccine (Menjugate, Novartis).
Both of these vaccines carry with them their own list of side
effects, which means they really do not qualify as a legitimate
study of "controls." But hardly anyone is paying much attention to
this because they are too busy lauding praise on GSK for developing
the vaccine and allegedly expecting to make no profit from it.
It all sounds so wonderful and humanitarian, but the fact of the
matter is that nearly 18 percent of children in the older vaccinated
group suffered serious adverse events from the vaccine, while more
than 13 percent in the youngest group suffered the same.
And more than 150
children from both groups
died during the study (see report's
page 7 - "Results".)
And since very little is known about how the vaccine affects
fertility, neurological function, bodily organs, immunity, and many
other aspects of health and well-being in the long term, it is
hardly a time to be celebrating.